Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > Recording Technologies and Techniques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-15-2024, 04:52 AM   #81
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,062
Default

It's pointless trying to shut the stable door now that the horse has bolted.

Questions of "is it art?" lead nowhere. There is no objective definition of art, something Duchamp should have laid to rest over a century ago.

I think the more productive conversation is around intellectual property rights and data sets. If I were making my living from streaming services or music libraries, I would be quite worried that my own work would be used to put me out of business.

As for machine learning music being derivative; the majority of music generated by humans is derivative. I don't see much difference between ML music and loop construction kits. In both cases a data set is studied to create derivative work, familiar enough to be recognisable but different enough to avoid litigation.

As with loop construction kits, midi generators or other generative methods, what they have yet to achieve is reflecting the lyrics in the harmony, instrumentation and arrangement. This is something most popular songs do, to varying degrees.

I've yet to hear any interesting music generated by ML, but I have heard a couple of entertaining distractions.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2024, 04:55 AM   #82
atomlux
Human being with feelings
 
atomlux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Posts: 281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post

I think the more productive conversation is around intellectual property rights and data sets.
I agree.
I wouldn't mind helping to train an AI, as long as I'm asked nicely.
And paid fairly, of course.
atomlux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2024, 06:14 AM   #83
Steve Fishboy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: South America
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imagegod View Post
Dude, with all respect, synthesized music is 'fake'. In some very real sense, recorded LIVE music is 'fake'.
To me, music is about feeling things others have felt, things they can't communicate with words or paintings or dance or theater, but which they can help me feel through music.

AIs feel nothing, and thus have nothing at all to communicate. They deliver a similacrum, the musical equivalent of a sex doll.

If that's your thing, more power to you! I hear the Japanese have some pretty incredible sex doll tech.

But personally, I prefer the real thing.
Steve Fishboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2024, 06:21 AM   #84
atomlux
Human being with feelings
 
atomlux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Posts: 281
Default

Every time I post in threads about AI, I come across as an asshole.
So, I'm very careful now.
atomlux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2024, 06:43 AM   #85
Steve Fishboy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: South America
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
It's pointless trying to shut the stable door now that the horse has bolted.
That's just not true. We could outlaw some or all AI just as we have done so with various drugs, chemicals and uses of ideas. In fact, the entirety of IP law is based on the premise that ideas are things that can be owned, bought, sold, licensed and rented, which is as abstract as can be -- and yet it is legally regulated, and many practices are outright banned and can lead to fines and/or jail time (selling something copyrighted by someone else, for example). AI need be no different.

So it's not true that we can't shut the stable door. All it takes to do so is a single law. Plus enforcement. Singapore-style execution for minor drug offenses has made that country essentially one big drug-free zone. Do the same for AI, execute a few rebellious CEOs and their underlings, and the jig is up.


Quote:
There is no objective definition of art, something Duchamp should have laid to rest over a century ago.
You're pissing up the wrong work here, my friend ;-)


Quote:
I think the more productive conversation is around intellectual property rights and data sets.
You insist on skipping over an entire previous conversation that needs to be had -- what do we as a society want AI to be permitted to be used for? Because this is our decision to make!

Your attitude is reminiscent of someone hearing about a new, completely legal designer drug that mimics MDMA but is a different molecule, and then shrugging and saying "Well, guess we just have to accept that and learn to live with it because it's brand new and no laws cover it". And this is false. We can promote, disincentivize, permit or ban absolutely anything as a society. It may take a social consensus, laws, or a constitutional amendment, but it's our society and we have the right to decide how it works.

I believe we should first of all strictly regulate AI, so that it doesn't get out of control while we figure out what we want as a society. I'd ban all AI usage that is not expressly permitted by law for now, starting with everything but non-profit academic research being banned.

Then I'd suggest we do what certain Amish communities do. They're not all anti-tech. At all. These specific communities are against working for tech, and for making tech work for them. So for example, there are Amish communities that allow the use of cell phones and computers -- but only for the purpose of running a business, and only during certain hours, and only in specific places. So Jethro can use Excel to calculate his harvest yields every first of the month, and can use the cell phone between 3:00 and 3:30 PM on Mondays and Thursdays to order fertilizer, seeds, etc. But there's no computers or phones at home, or in stores, or in community centers, or in people's pockets as they go about their day.

These Amish have taken control of the technology that suits them. We, on the other hand, are like the deeply drugged girl at the tech bro frat party, blindly and unreflexively throwing herself at every moving thing in sight to be used as they see fit, for their own benefit, not hers. Or ours.

We need to be more like these Amish communities (I'm not referring to the ones that reject all tech after the button -- those exist, but they're very different from the ones I'm talking about). We need to stop lubing ourselves up and taking in every shiny new thing that the tech bros want to shove into us.

After an initial AI moratorium, as mentioned above, I'd suggest we permanently ban AI from being used to do anything humans already can do. Or, put the other way around, I'd allow AI only to be used for things we as humans can't do. Things that provide society at large with a substantial benefit.

Can we crunch billions of data points in our head or distinguish a minor tectonic movement from an ICBM launch with our eyes and some seismic data? No? Okay, then AI is fine for that!

Can we act, sing, perform music, compose music, write poetry and novels and plays? Yes? Then AI should be banned from these uses. In these areas it threatens to seriously harm, or even devastate, creative cultures and communities, and all for zero to negative benefit. Why on earth would we allow this!? Because laissez-faire? Fuck that. We are humans, not pigs born to consume slop, AI-generated or otherwise.

Last edited by Steve Fishboy; 05-15-2024 at 06:48 AM.
Steve Fishboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2024, 07:03 AM   #86
atomlux
Human being with feelings
 
atomlux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Posts: 281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fishboy View Post
That's just not true. We could outlaw some or all AI just as we have done so with various drugs, chemicals and uses of ideas. In fact, the entirety of IP law is based on the premise that ideas are things that can be owned, bought, sold, licensed and rented, which is as abstract as can be -- and yet it is legally regulated, and many practices are outright banned and can lead to fines and/or jail time (selling something copyrighted by someone else, for example). AI need be no different.

So it's not true that we can't shut the stable door. All it takes to do so is a single law. Plus enforcement. Singapore-style execution for minor drug offenses has made that country essentially one big drug-free zone. Do the same for AI, execute a few rebellious CEOs and their underlings, and the jig is up.




You're pissing up the wrong work here, my friend ;-)




You insist on skipping over an entire previous conversation that needs to be had -- what do we as a society want AI to be permitted to be used for? Because this is our decision to make!

Your attitude is reminiscent of someone hearing about a new, completely legal designer drug that mimics MDMA but is a different molecule, and then shrugging and saying "Well, guess we just have to accept that and learn to live with it because it's brand new and no laws cover it". And this is false. We can promote, disincentivize, permit or ban absolutely anything as a society. It may take a social consensus, laws, or a constitutional amendment, but it's our society and we have the right to decide how it works.

I believe we should first of all strictly regulate AI, so that it doesn't get out of control while we figure out what we want as a society. I'd ban all AI usage that is not expressly permitted by law for now, starting with everything but non-profit academic research being banned.

Then I'd suggest we do what certain Amish communities do. They're not all anti-tech. At all. These specific communities are against working for tech, and for making tech work for them. So for example, there are Amish communities that allow the use of cell phones and computers -- but only for the purpose of running a business, and only during certain hours, and only in specific places. So Jethro can use Excel to calculate his harvest yields every first of the month, and can use the cell phone between 3:00 and 3:30 PM on Mondays and Thursdays to order fertilizer, seeds, etc. But there's no computers or phones at home, or in stores, or in community centers, or in people's pockets as they go about their day.

These Amish have taken control of the technology that suits them. We, on the other hand, are like the deeply drugged girl at the tech bro frat party, blindly and unreflexively throwing herself at every moving thing in sight to be used as they see fit, for their own benefit, not hers. Or ours.

We need to be more like these Amish communities (I'm not referring to the ones that reject all tech after the button -- those exist, but they're very different from the ones I'm talking about). We need to stop lubing ourselves up and taking in every shiny new thing that the tech bros want to shove into us.

After an initial AI moratorium, as mentioned above, I'd suggest we permanently ban AI from being used to do anything humans already can do. Or, put the other way around, I'd allow AI only to be used for things we as humans can't do. Things that provide society at large with a substantial benefit.

Can we crunch billions of data points in our head or distinguish a minor tectonic movement from an ICBM launch with our eyes and some seismic data? No? Okay, then AI is fine for that!

Can we act, sing, perform music, compose music, write poetry and novels and plays? Yes? Then AI should be banned from these uses. In these areas it threatens to seriously harm, or even devastate, creative cultures and communities, and all for zero to negative benefit. Why on earth would we allow this!? Because laissez-faire? Fuck that. We are humans, not pigs born to consume slop, AI-generated or otherwise.
I've seen some very human things go away over the years mate.
I feel you.
atomlux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2024, 08:20 AM   #87
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fishboy View Post
That's just not true. We could outlaw some or all AI just as we have done so with various drugs, chemicals and uses of ideas. In fact, the entirety of IP law is based on the premise that ideas are things that can be owned, bought, sold, licensed and rented, which is as abstract as can be -- and yet it is legally regulated, and many practices are outright banned and can lead to fines and/or jail time (selling something copyrighted by someone else, for example). AI need be no different.

So it's not true that we can't shut the stable door. All it takes to do so is a single law. Plus enforcement. Singapore-style execution for minor drug offenses has made that country essentially one big drug-free zone. Do the same for AI, execute a few rebellious CEOs and their underlings, and the jig is up.




You're pissing up the wrong work here, my friend ;-)




You insist on skipping over an entire previous conversation that needs to be had -- what do we as a society want AI to be permitted to be used for? Because this is our decision to make!

Your attitude is reminiscent of someone hearing about a new, completely legal designer drug that mimics MDMA but is a different molecule, and then shrugging and saying "Well, guess we just have to accept that and learn to live with it because it's brand new and no laws cover it". And this is false. We can promote, disincentivize, permit or ban absolutely anything as a society. It may take a social consensus, laws, or a constitutional amendment, but it's our society and we have the right to decide how it works.

I believe we should first of all strictly regulate AI, so that it doesn't get out of control while we figure out what we want as a society. I'd ban all AI usage that is not expressly permitted by law for now, starting with everything but non-profit academic research being banned.

Then I'd suggest we do what certain Amish communities do. They're not all anti-tech. At all. These specific communities are against working for tech, and for making tech work for them. So for example, there are Amish communities that allow the use of cell phones and computers -- but only for the purpose of running a business, and only during certain hours, and only in specific places. So Jethro can use Excel to calculate his harvest yields every first of the month, and can use the cell phone between 3:00 and 3:30 PM on Mondays and Thursdays to order fertilizer, seeds, etc. But there's no computers or phones at home, or in stores, or in community centers, or in people's pockets as they go about their day.

These Amish have taken control of the technology that suits them. We, on the other hand, are like the deeply drugged girl at the tech bro frat party, blindly and unreflexively throwing herself at every moving thing in sight to be used as they see fit, for their own benefit, not hers. Or ours.

We need to be more like these Amish communities (I'm not referring to the ones that reject all tech after the button -- those exist, but they're very different from the ones I'm talking about). We need to stop lubing ourselves up and taking in every shiny new thing that the tech bros want to shove into us.

After an initial AI moratorium, as mentioned above, I'd suggest we permanently ban AI from being used to do anything humans already can do. Or, put the other way around, I'd allow AI only to be used for things we as humans can't do. Things that provide society at large with a substantial benefit.

Can we crunch billions of data points in our head or distinguish a minor tectonic movement from an ICBM launch with our eyes and some seismic data? No? Okay, then AI is fine for that!

Can we act, sing, perform music, compose music, write poetry and novels and plays? Yes? Then AI should be banned from these uses. In these areas it threatens to seriously harm, or even devastate, creative cultures and communities, and all for zero to negative benefit. Why on earth would we allow this!? Because laissez-faire? Fuck that. We are humans, not pigs born to consume slop, AI-generated or otherwise.
It would be nice if that were true, but if that were the case we would have outlawed fossil fuels 30 years ago.

Drug legislation does have to be updated regularly to keep up with innovations in chemistry, but the big difference with illegal drugs is that they are a physical product that needs to cross borders. Even then millions of tons of them do cross borders.

Unless you want a Chinese style firewall protecting each nation from ML, I don't see how you can legislate it realistically. The fact that corporations smell profit in AI means elected governments will most likely give it the green light, probably with some performative and toothless regulation.

PS. I appreciate the Duchamp joke
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2024, 12:25 PM   #88
Pink Wool
Human being with feelings
 
Pink Wool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fishboy View Post
We can promote, disincentivize, permit or ban absolutely anything as a society. It may take a social consensus, laws, or a constitutional amendment, but it's our society and we have the right to decide how it works.
Absolutely anything?

Try getting "us" to end world hunger. Or wars. Or just about any societal issue. It's not so easy! Banning a new tech? Relatively easy. They did want to ban the internet too - early on...

Also, certain Mr. Kaczynski had some similar ideas about new tech (back then it was computers...)

Edit: Not saying there's anything wrong with wanting a simpler life closer to nature. And I hope you're living that life!
__________________
Live simply so that others can simply live

Last edited by Pink Wool; 05-15-2024 at 12:45 PM.
Pink Wool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2024, 01:14 PM   #89
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders
As for machine learning music being derivative; the majority of music generated by humans is derivative.
First off how's it goin Judders!? Secondly, ^thank you but I'd add that pretty much all of it is in some form. Let me find an AI-related but not necessarily music quote of mine from a different forum that may be off topic but interesting:

My response is to someone saying it's humans vs machines...

Quote:
We are biological machines in every sense of the term.

To be clear, I have this apparently weird ability to remove myself and my feelings from my ponderings (mostly). 🙂 That's what I'm attempting here as I have no evidence our consciousness is anything more than what it is like to "be the software running" - we as humans have an extreme cannot escape the forest to properly observe problem. Along with a we think we are special problem that is now being thrown in our faces slowly but surely.

There's also zero evidence that shows we can't proverbially "evolve" into silicon-based life in some form, not saying that's the trajectory, this is just for understanding.

I doubt any previous pre-human would have agreed with the idea they would be replaced by us - they would naturally come up with every reason possible why that wouldn't work or would be a terrible idea, yet that is exactly what happened.
When I see statements like yours, though I greatly respect them, my analytical brain still hear "kicking and screaming that we are special".

Again remember I'm decent at removing my own human based fears/morals/whathaveyou from my observations as I consider it necessary in order to evaluate this. None of the above reflects my desire of it occurring or not.
Now let me make clear that there is nothing wrong with protecting our human turf or enjoy making music ourselves (and you are right, it began long before AI), I'm just not buying many of the reasons people generally give which I see as just lashing out warranted or not.

Take care my friend, haven't been here much because I haven't been recording much. I still gig as always and now spend a lot of time back in photography, mostly professional drone work. Just worked a huge music festival a couple weeks ago, 80k people over 3 days.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2024, 11:02 PM   #90
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
First off how's it goin Judders!? Secondly, ^thank you but I'd add that pretty much all of it is in some form. Let me find an AI-related but not necessarily music quote of mine from a different forum that may be off topic but interesting:

My response is to someone saying it's humans vs machines...



Now let me make clear that there is nothing wrong with protecting our human turf or enjoy making music ourselves (and you are right, it began long before AI), I'm just not buying many of the reasons people generally give which I see as just lashing out warranted or not.

Take care my friend, haven't been here much because I haven't been recording much. I still gig as always and now spend a lot of time back in photography, mostly professional drone work. Just worked a huge music festival a couple weeks ago, 80k people over 3 days.
Hey man, I'm ticking along thanks, glad to hear you're keeping yourself busy - that sounds really fun! Let me know if you ever want some photogrammetry/3D modelling done from your drone footage!

I'm with you on your point - I should have said most human output is deliberately derivative, as in people are consciously trying to copy other artists with just enough difference to make it a distinct product.

Obviously all inspiration is derived from existing work.

I do wonder why evolutionary learning models aren't used in conjunction with current ML. 20 years ago a Windows screensaver could evolve a set of geometric shapes into an efficient method of ambulation over generations - why can't we do something similar so an ML program can draw hands?
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2024, 08:58 AM   #91
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
Hey man, I'm ticking along thanks, glad to hear you're keeping yourself busy - that sounds really fun! Let me know if you ever want some photogrammetry/3D modelling done from your drone footage!
I know there are many into that part of the business here. I've stayed on the promotion/creative side mostly but will probably branch out. It can get sticky though as many states have laws about needing a surveyor's license. I started a small company back in July but it's really more of a get started now as a semi-retirement gig.

Quote:
I'm with you on your point - I should have said most human output is deliberately derivative, as in people are consciously trying to copy other artists with just enough difference to make it a distinct product.

Obviously all inspiration is derived from existing work.
I think soooo much also comes from the subconscious caldron of our entire life experiences where things get mixed and munged, find their way back out in a derived form and the artist will often say "I don't know where it came from, it just sort of flowed out". Different day/discussion I suppose but it was similar to what I was getting at of everything being derivative to some extent - even without knowing it. I think being able to access that is awesome but just making the interesting observation. Not the same as current AI training but not really 'that' different either.

Quote:
I do wonder why evolutionary learning models aren't used in conjunction with current ML. 20 years ago a Windows screensaver could evolve a set of geometric shapes into an efficient method of ambulation over generations - why can't we do something similar so an ML program can draw hands?
Todays AI augmented with Conway's Game of Life?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2024, 01:20 AM   #92
Pink Wool
Human being with feelings
 
Pink Wool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Default

I was just thinking today just how sad it is that Bowie died before he could see AI music generation. Would have loved to see his take on it and how he'd have (most likely) incorporated it into his music! He was a big fan of new music tech and was always trying to push it forwards. Eno's still here though!
__________________
Live simply so that others can simply live
Pink Wool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2024, 06:27 AM   #93
Steve Fishboy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: South America
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
It would be nice if that were true, but if that were the case we would have outlawed fossil fuels 30 years ago.
30 years ago there was barely any debate on that issue, much less a societal consensus. Global warming was a solid theory even then, yes, but it had little data and only primitive models to back it up. Plus, there were no viable alternatives -- electric cars are still expensive, of limited range, accessible only to some, etc. So, in short, this is not a valid analogy for AI.


Quote:
Drug legislation does have to be updated regularly to keep up with innovations in chemistry...
Which can also be done for AI, of course.


Quote:
Unless you want a Chinese style firewall protecting each nation from ML, I don't see how you can legislate it realistically.
The same way we legislate and enforce IP. It's imperfect, to be sure --every single DAW, VST and VSTi in existence exists in cracked form on RUssian torrent trackers, for example-- but this legislation largely works, and it definitely keeps things mostly under control, which makes it exactly like every other type of legislation (murder is illegal and strongly penalized, for example, but some murders are still committed).

AI is no different. We can regulate it, or even ban it, if that's what we as a society want. Enforcement will be imperfect, but will be effective in 99% of cases, which is damned good.

And now that I think about it, regulating or banning AI would actually be trivially simple to enforce, because unlike, say, cracking the latest version of Kontakt, which people actually do for sport, training AI models requires absolutely massive infrastructure, training data and expertise that even most Fortune 500 companies don't have. Plus the ability to pay electric bills that run to the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. That's why AI is limited to a handful of companies, which could be regularly audited.


Quote:
The fact that corporations smell profit in AI means elected governments will most likely give it the green light, probably with some performative and toothless regulation.
The US government does indeed tend to kneel down before big business while tasing the consumer relentlessly. But the EU is quite the opposite. So we shall see.

But we absolutely need to have society-wide debates on AI and what we want to allow it to do and be used for.


Quote:
PS. I appreciate the Duchamp joke
That brings a smile to my face ;-)
Steve Fishboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2024, 06:40 AM   #94
Steve Fishboy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: South America
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pink Wool View Post
Absolutely anything?
Any human activity. Obviously, we can't "ban" sunspots, earthquakes or tornados. I'm sure you understood my point.


Quote:
Also, certain Mr. Kaczynski had some similar ideas about new tech (back then it was computers...)
He's the single most extreme example that exists of resistance to certain technologies. He's hardly an example to follow.

Check out this video for an entertaining and enlightening look at how certain (utterly peaceful, letterbomb-free) Amish communities are selective about their use of technology:





Quote:
Edit: Not saying there's anything wrong with wanting a simpler life closer to nature. And I hope you're living that life!
It's not about that. AI is NOT an individual choice -- if left in the hands of the techbros, it will devastate society in ways we can't imagine yet, whether we personally use it or not. That is why it must be regulated at a societal level.
Steve Fishboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2024, 12:01 PM   #95
Pink Wool
Human being with feelings
 
Pink Wool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fishboy View Post
Any human activity. Obviously, we can't "ban" sunspots, earthquakes or tornados. I'm sure you understood my point.




He's the single most extreme example that exists of resistance to certain technologies. He's hardly an example to follow.

Check out this video for an entertaining and enlightening look at how certain (utterly peaceful, letterbomb-free) Amish communities are selective about their use of technology:







It's not about that. AI is NOT an individual choice -- if left in the hands of the techbros, it will devastate society in ways we can't imagine yet, whether we personally use it or not. That is why it must be regulated at a societal level.
Regulate any human activity? Sounds awfully lot like what China and North Korea are trying to do. In more democratic countries, things, unless they are actually bad for people, are less regulated. I'm not sure if you can make the argument that AI is bad for people when smoking and drinking (and soon other drugs) are readily available. But that's just my thinking, you can disagree with it if you like.


Now I think some of the Amish life surely looks nice! But I also have close experiences with people in tight knit religious groups and I'm not that blue eyed that I only see the good in them. Again, if you do, fine. But there sure is awful lot of stuff happening in the groups that don't stand daylight.


And I agree that AI shouldn't be an "individual choice" - it should be readily available to all the people everywhere, not just money-hungry corporations. It should be something that non-profit organizations and governments offer for the people most in need - for free.
__________________
Live simply so that others can simply live
Pink Wool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2024, 12:22 PM   #96
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fishboy View Post
30 years ago there was barely any debate on that issue, much less a societal consensus. Global warming was a solid theory even then, yes, but it had little data and only primitive models to back it up. Plus, there were no viable alternatives -- electric cars are still expensive, of limited range, accessible only to some, etc. So, in short, this is not a valid analogy for AI.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fishboy View Post
The same way we legislate and enforce IP. It's imperfect, to be sure --every single DAW, VST and VSTi in existence exists in cracked form on RUssian torrent trackers, for example-- but this legislation largely works, and it definitely keeps things mostly under control, which makes it exactly like every other type of legislation (murder is illegal and strongly penalized, for example, but some murders are still committed).

AI is no different. We can regulate it, or even ban it, if that's what we as a society want. Enforcement will be imperfect, but will be effective in 99% of cases, which is damned good.

And now that I think about it, regulating or banning AI would actually be trivially simple to enforce, because unlike, say, cracking the latest version of Kontakt, which people actually do for sport, training AI models requires absolutely massive infrastructure, training data and expertise that even most Fortune 500 companies don't have. Plus the ability to pay electric bills that run to the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. That's why AI is limited to a handful of companies, which could be regularly audited.
A crackhead can travel to any almost city in the world and find crack to smoke in a matter of hours. Anyone can download almost any pirated software in a matter of minutes.

I'm not sure about the expertise bit - how come even small plugin companies are now using ML in their products? If you outlaw ML, it seems to me that illegally selling training data would become a booming business.

How did prohibition work out for the US? Organised crime had its biggest ever boom, and that generational wealth is still visible today.

If stuff like this is happening: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/04/a...hnk/index.html already, how much worse could it get if you provide huge incentive to organised crime by prohibiting AI?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fishboy View Post
But we absolutely need to have society-wide debates on AI and what we want to allow it to do and be used for.
I agree that would be nice in principle, but no governments, militaries or corporations want to miss out on the gold rush and be left behind in a new age. I believe it is pragmatic to expect the flood gates to open, whether we like it or not.

You can read the EU's official stance on AI here: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.e...l-intelligence
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2024, 08:44 AM   #97
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,062
Default

Here's the kind of power you're up against if you want to limit AI: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...war-technology
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2024, 03:07 AM   #98
Pink Wool
Human being with feelings
 
Pink Wool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
Here's the kind of power you're up against if you want to limit AI: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...war-technology
Stop the press! Military using new tech for their war efforts?! Say it ain't so! :
__________________
Live simply so that others can simply live
Pink Wool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2024, 06:24 AM   #99
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 14,936
Default

Yep. We are discussing copyright. They are discussing killing.

I am rather sure we soon will see offers for autonomous drones flying along country frontiers, shooting "illegal" immigrants .
mschnell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2024, 06:57 AM   #100
Pink Wool
Human being with feelings
 
Pink Wool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
Yep. We are discussing copyright. They are discussing killing.

I am rather sure we soon will see offers for autonomous drones flying along country frontiers, shooting "illegal" immigrants .
Even the copyright argument is not as clear cut as people seem to make it out to be. A local indie band and Disney are both players in this - but no way in hell are they equal and that's something I wish people would understand.
__________________
Live simply so that others can simply live
Pink Wool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2024, 10:18 AM   #101
Steve Fishboy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: South America
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
I agree that would be nice in principle, but no governments, militaries or corporations want to miss out on the gold rush and be left behind in a new age. I believe it is pragmatic to expect the flood gates to open, whether we like it or not.

Governments (their security apparatuses, at least) and the military cannot be controlled, I agree with you there. But they aren't going to be using AI to replace human creativity with cost-free pseudo-artistic slop.

Corporations, on the other hand, can indeed be controlled. It's a matter of political will. Granted, the US is a corporatist state and has converted its citizens into mere consumers, hungry hogs willing to gobble down any old swill and be grateful for it. But the EU is not at all like that. In fact, they're the world leader in everything from environmental protection to consumer rights to worker-centered labor law. That's where there may be hope.
Steve Fishboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2024, 10:06 AM   #102
jerome_oneil
Human being with feelings
 
jerome_oneil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 5,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fishboy View Post
Governments (their security apparatuses, at least) and the military cannot be controlled, I agree with you there. But they aren't going to be using AI to replace human creativity with cost-free pseudo-artistic slop.
They are already busy replacing combat pilots with really expensive, highly trained AI pilots. They are doing the same thing with drones to help identify targets and clear spaces, replacing the "point" guy on an assault team.

All the artistic wankery is, well, wankery. The military is using this technology to kill people. And that's not wankery.
jerome_oneil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2024, 01:59 PM   #103
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Fishboy View Post
Governments (their security apparatuses, at least) and the military cannot be controlled, I agree with you there. But they aren't going to be using AI to replace human creativity with cost-free pseudo-artistic slop.

Corporations, on the other hand, can indeed be controlled. It's a matter of political will. Granted, the US is a corporatist state and has converted its citizens into mere consumers, hungry hogs willing to gobble down any old swill and be grateful for it. But the EU is not at all like that. In fact, they're the world leader in everything from environmental protection to consumer rights to worker-centered labor law. That's where there may be hope.
Private corporations are developing this technology. Military technology always filters down to civilian markets, and the directors of these companies have a fiduciary duty to maximise dividends for their shareholders; which means they will use their substantial political leverage to expand the use of technologies they have developed.

As for the EU, you can read their plans in the document I linked to. There will be no moratorium on AI, they want to invest in development hubs.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.